Re: memory barriers in flock (Re: [PATCH v3] locks: close potential race between setlease and open)

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 02:31:06PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 09:44:25PM +0100, David Howells wrote: Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote: (Adding Paul McKenney who's good at this stuff) Well, I should be able to provide a more refined form of confusion

Re: [PATCH v4] locks: close potential race between setlease and open

. ACK--thanks for your persistence! --b. Cc: Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org Cc: David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com Cc: Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com Reported-by: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton jlay...@redhat.com --- fs/locks.c | 75

Re: [PATCH v3] locks: close potential race between setlease and open

that there is one and the setlease call will fail. Cc: Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org Cc: David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com Reported-by: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton jlay...@redhat.com --- fs/locks.c | 71

Re: [PATCH v3] locks: close potential race between setlease and open

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 03:43:25PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:32:03 -0400 Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 08:11:50AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: v2: - fix potential double-free of lease if second check finds conflict - add

Re: [git pull] fixes for 3.12-final

On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 03:39:14PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote: IIRC, at some point such an attempt has seriously hurt iget() on 32bit boxen, so we ended up deciding not to go there. Had been years ago, though...

Re: [git pull] fixes for 3.12-final

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:10:04PM +, Al Viro wrote: FWIW, not taking -i_lock there definitely looks like a good thing. As for 64bit -i_ino itself... Looks like the main problem is the shitload of printks - the actual uses of -i_ino are fine, but these suckers create a lot of noise. So

Re: [git pull] fixes for 3.12-final

(Argh, sorry, with the right stable address cc'd this time I hope.) On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:10:04PM +, Al Viro wrote: FWIW, not taking -i_lock there definitely looks like a good thing. As for 64bit -i_ino itself... Looks like the main problem is the shitload of printks - the actual

Re: [PATCH] locks: close potential race between setlease and open

I still don't understand what guarantees that the opener calling break_lease will see the new value of i_flock. --b. Cc: Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org Reported-by: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton jlay...@redhat.com --- fs/locks.c | 31

Re: [git pull] fixes for 3.12-final

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 08:32:43AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:16:55AM -0500, Bruce Fields wrote: (Argh, sorry, with the right stable address cc'd this time I hope.) On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:10:04PM +, Al Viro wrote: FWIW, not taking -i_lock there definitely

Re: [PATCH 1/3] SUNRPC: Reduce contention in svc_xprt_enqueue()

All three patches look good to me, thanks. From private email, this: On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:59:31PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: @@ -222,11 +223,12 @@ static void svc_xprt_received(struct svc_xprt *xprt) if (!test_bit(XPT_BUSY, xprt-xpt_flags)) return; /* As

Re: [PATCH] Next branch: authgss: authgss.c: Fix warnings for uninitizlized variable expire

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 01:52:15PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: On 09/01/2014 04:50 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Shakil A Khan shakilk1...@gmail.com wrote: Signed-off-by : Shakil A Khan shakilk1...@gmail.com --- net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c |2 +- 1

Re: [PATCH] Next branch: authgss: authgss.c: Fix warnings for uninitizlized variable expire

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:59:45PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: uninitialized_var was made to be a friend not an enemy, in the face of real ugliness it is the best we can do. And that is what it should communicate to everyone. Why has it become everyone's favorite blasphemy I do not know. Not

Re: [PATCH] nfsd: more robust allocation failure handling in nfsd_reply_cache_init

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:23:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > While this would be good to get in, I don't see any particular urgency > > here. This seems like it'd be reasonable for v4.9. > > Agreed, looks ok to

Re: [PATCH v2] integrity: track mtime in addition to i_version for assessment

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:56:50PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 10:35 -0400, Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:20:21AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > Right, currently the only way of knowing is by looking at the IMA > > > measurem

Re: [PATCH v2] integrity: track mtime in addition to i_version for assessment

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:20:21AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > Right, currently the only way of knowing is by looking at the IMA > measurement list to see if modified files are re-measured or, as you > said, by looking at the code. Who's actually using this, and do they do any kind of checks, or

Re: [PULL REQUEST] nfsd changes for 4.15

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 12:03:45PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > On Nov 18, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:40 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfie...@fieldses.org> > > wrote

Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the nfsd tree

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:21:05AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 8:42 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > After merging the nfsd tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: > > > >

Re: general protection fault in encode_rpcb_string

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 12:34:48PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On May 8, 2018, at 12:15 PM, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:54:36PM +, Trond Myklebust wrote: > >> Yes, and we can probably convert it, and the other GFP_ATOMIC > >> allocations in the

Re: [PATCH] NFSD: hide unused svcxdr_dupstr()

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:15:33AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On Jan 19, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > There is now only one caller left for svcxdr_dupstr() and this is inside > > of an #ifdef, so we can get a warning when the option is disabled: > > > >

Re: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds Read in string (2)

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 06:40:35AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 2018-10-24 at 12:35 +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > diff --git a/fs/lockd/host.c b/fs/lockd/host.c > > > > index d35cd6be0675..93fb7cf0b92b 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/lockd/host.c > > > > +++ b/fs/lockd/host.c > > > > @@

Re: [PATCH 2/3] namei: implement AT_THIS_ROOT chroot-like path resolution

On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 03:44:28PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > On 2018-09-29, Jann Horn wrote: > > The problem is what happens if a folder you are walking through is > > concurrently moved out of the chroot. Consider the following scenario: > > > > You attempt to open "C/../../etc/passwd" under

Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in locks_delete_block

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 08:33:27AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > Thanks for the explanation, Dmitry. I've added the tag to the patch in > my tree. It should show up in linux-next soon. > > I still find it a little misleading to say that syzbot reported a bug > when it actually found a bug inside an

Re: memory barriers in flock (Re: [PATCH v3] locks: close potential race between setlease and open)

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 02:31:06PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 09:44:25PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > > Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > (Adding Paul McKenney who's good at this stuff) > > Well, I should be able to provide a mor

Re: [PATCH v4] locks: close potential race between setlease and open

incremented. Thus the additional check for a conflicting > open will see that there is one and the setlease call will fail. ACK--thanks for your persistence! --b. > > Cc: Bruce Fields > Cc: David Howells > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" > Reported-by: Al Viro > Signed-o

Re: [PATCH v3] locks: close potential race between setlease and open

ary refcounts have > already been incremented. Thus the additional check for a conflicting > open will see that there is one and the setlease call will fail. > > Cc: Bruce Fields > Cc: David Howells > Reported-by: Al Viro > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton > --- > fs/locks.c | 71 >

Re: [PATCH v3] locks: close potential race between setlease and open

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 03:43:25PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:32:03 -0400 > Bruce Fields wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 08:11:50AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > v2: > > > - fix potential double-free of lease if second check fi

Re: [git pull] fixes for 3.12-final

On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 03:39:14PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Al Viro wrote: > > > > IIRC, at some point such an attempt has seriously hurt iget() on 32bit > > boxen, so we ended up deciding not to go there. Had been years ago, > > though... > > Yeah, I

Re: [git pull] fixes for 3.12-final

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:10:04PM +, Al Viro wrote: > FWIW, not taking ->i_lock there definitely looks like a good thing. As for > 64bit ->i_ino itself... Looks like the main problem is the shitload of > printks - the actual uses of ->i_ino are fine, but these suckers create > a lot of

Re: [git pull] fixes for 3.12-final

(Argh, sorry, with the right stable address cc'd this time I hope.) On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:10:04PM +, Al Viro wrote: > FWIW, not taking ->i_lock there definitely looks like a good thing. As for > 64bit ->i_ino itself... Looks like the main problem is the shitload of > printks - the

Re: [git pull] fixes for 3.12-final

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 08:32:43AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:16:55AM -0500, Bruce Fields wrote: > > (Argh, sorry, with the right stable address cc'd this time I hope.) > > > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:10:04PM +, Al Viro wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH 1/3] SUNRPC: Reduce contention in svc_xprt_enqueue()

All three patches look good to me, thanks. >From private email, this: On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:59:31PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > @@ -222,11 +223,12 @@ static void svc_xprt_received(struct svc_xprt *xprt) > if (!test_bit(XPT_BUSY, >xpt_flags)) > return; > /* As

Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the nfsd tree

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:21:05AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 8:42 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > After merging the nfsd tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: > > > >

Re: general protection fault in encode_rpcb_string

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 12:34:48PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On May 8, 2018, at 12:15 PM, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:54:36PM +, Trond Myklebust wrote: > >> Yes, and we can probably convert it, and the other GFP_ATOMIC > >> allocations in the

Re: [PULL REQUEST] nfsd changes for 4.15

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 12:03:45PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > On Nov 18, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Linus Torvalds > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:40 AM, J. Bruce Fields > > wrote: > >> Please pull nfsd changes for 4.15 from: &g

Re: [PATCH v2] integrity: track mtime in addition to i_version for assessment

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:20:21AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > Right, currently the only way of knowing is by looking at the IMA > measurement list to see if modified files are re-measured or, as you > said, by looking at the code. Who's actually using this, and do they do any kind of checks, or

Re: [PATCH v2] integrity: track mtime in addition to i_version for assessment

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:56:50PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 10:35 -0400, Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:20:21AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > Right, currently the only way of knowing is by looking at the IMA > > > measurem

Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/18] crypto: Add generic Kerberos library

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 04:54:06PM +, David Howells wrote: > Chuck Lever wrote: > > > Really? My understanding of the Linux kernel SUNRPC implementation is > > that it uses asynchronous, even for small data items. Maybe I'm using > > the terminology incorrectly. > > Seems to be synchronous,

Re: Why the auxiliary cipher in gss_krb5_crypto.c?

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:59:35PM +, David Howells wrote: > Hi Chuck, Bruce, > > Why is gss_krb5_crypto.c using an auxiliary cipher? For reference, the > gss_krb5_aes_encrypt() code looks like the attached. > > >From what I can tell, in AES mode, the difference between the main cipher and

Re: Why the auxiliary cipher in gss_krb5_crypto.c?

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 04:01:53PM +, David Howells wrote: > Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > Reading up on CTS, I'm guessing the reason it's like this is that CTS is > > > the > > > same as the non-CTS, except for the last two blocks, but the non-CTS o

Re: Why the auxiliary cipher in gss_krb5_crypto.c?

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:46:26AM -0500, Bruce Fields wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:59:35PM +, David Howells wrote: > > Hi Chuck, Bruce, > > > > Why is gss_krb5_crypto.c using an auxiliary cipher? For reference, the > > gss_krb5_aes_encrypt() c

Re: [PATCH v2] nfsd: Convert to use the preferred fallthrough macro

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 08:49:12AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > Hi- > > > On Aug 19, 2020, at 10:57 PM, Miaohe Lin wrote: > > > > Convert the uses of fallthrough comments to fallthrough macro. Please see > > commit 294f69e662d1 ("compiler_attributes.h: Add 'fallthrough' pseudo > > keyword for

Re: [PATCH][next] nfsd: fix check of statid returned from call to find_stateid_by_type

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 03:53:36PM +, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Jan 28, 2021, at 10:34 AM, Dan Carpenter > > wrote: > > Fixes tags are used for a lot of different things: > > 1) If there is a fixes tag, then you can tell it does *NOT* have to > >be back ported because the original

Re: [PATCH] NFSD: hide unused svcxdr_dupstr()

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:15:33AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On Jan 19, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > There is now only one caller left for svcxdr_dupstr() and this is inside > > of an #ifdef, so we can get a warning when the option is disabled: > > > >

Re: [PATCH v2] SUNRPC: Add missing definition of ARCH_IMPLEMENTS_FLUSH_DCACHE_PAGE

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:33:40AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On Jun 15, 2020, at 2:25 AM, Christophe Leroy > > wrote: > > > > Even if that's only a warning, not including asm/cacheflush.h > > leads to svc_flush_bvec() being empty allthough powerpc defines > >

Re: [PATCH net-next] svcrdma: Use struct_size() in kmalloc()

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 04:49:16PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva > wrote: > > > One of the more common cases of allocation size calculations is finding > > the size of a structure that has a zero-sized array at the end, along > > with memory

Re: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds Read in string (2)

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 06:40:35AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 2018-10-24 at 12:35 +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > diff --git a/fs/lockd/host.c b/fs/lockd/host.c > > > > index d35cd6be0675..93fb7cf0b92b 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/lockd/host.c > > > > +++ b/fs/lockd/host.c > > > > @@

Re: [PATCH 2/3] namei: implement AT_THIS_ROOT chroot-like path resolution

On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 03:44:28PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > On 2018-09-29, Jann Horn wrote: > > The problem is what happens if a folder you are walking through is > > concurrently moved out of the chroot. Consider the following scenario: > > > > You attempt to open "C/../../etc/passwd" under

Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in locks_delete_block

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 08:33:27AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > Thanks for the explanation, Dmitry. I've added the tag to the patch in > my tree. It should show up in linux-next soon. > > I still find it a little misleading to say that syzbot reported a bug > when it actually found a bug inside an

Re: [PATCH] Next branch: authgss: authgss.c: Fix warnings for uninitizlized variable expire

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 01:52:15PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 09/01/2014 04:50 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Shakil A Khan wrote: > >> Signed-off-by : Shakil A Khan > >> --- > >> net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c |2 +- > >> 1 files changed, 1

Re: [PATCH] Next branch: authgss: authgss.c: Fix warnings for uninitizlized variable expire

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:59:45PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > uninitialized_var was made to be a friend not an enemy, in the face of real > ugliness it is the best we can do. And that is what it should communicate to > everyone. Why has it become everyone's favorite blasphemy I do not know. Not

Re: [PATCH] nfsd: more robust allocation failure handling in nfsd_reply_cache_init

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:23:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > While this would be good to get in, I don't see any particular urgency > > here. This seems like it'd be reasonable for v4.9. > > Agreed, looks ok to me. It certainly

Re: [PATCH] locks: close potential race between setlease and open

any lock or memory barrier on the lease-setter's side I still don't understand what guarantees that the opener calling break_lease will see the new value of i_flock. --b. > > Cc: Bruce Fields > Reported-by: Al Viro > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton > --- > fs/locks.c | 31 +++

Re: [PATCH][next] nfsd: fix check of statid returned from call to find_stateid_by_type

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 03:05:06PM +, Chuck Lever wrote: > Hi Colin- > > > On Jan 28, 2021, at 9:49 AM, Colin King wrote: > > > > From: Colin Ian King > > > > The call to find_stateid_by_type is setting the return value in *stid > > yet the NULL check of the return is checking stid

Re: [PATCH -next] NFSD: Use DEFINE_SPINLOCK() for spinlock

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 03:46:34PM +, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > > > On Apr 6, 2021, at 8:08 AM, Huang Guobin wrote: > > > > From: Guobin Huang > > > > spinlock can be initialized automatically with DEFINE_SPINLOCK() > > rather than explicitly calling spin_lock_init(). > > > >

Re: NFS Caching broken in 4.19.37

On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 11:38:51AM +, Anton Ivanov wrote: > On 21/02/2021 09:13, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > >On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 08:16:26PM +, Chuck Lever wrote: > >>Confirming you are varying client-side kernels. Should the Linux > >>NFS client maintainers be Cc'd? > > > >Ok,

Re: [kvm-devel] [GIT PULL] kvm oops fix

On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 03:34:01PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: David Brown wrote: What is the easiest way to completely undo a pull, reverting the branch to the HEAD present before the pull? If the pull doesn't merge successfully then usually doing a `git-reset --hard` will blow everything

Re: [RFC 0/28] Patches to pass vfsmount to LSM inode security hooks

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 10:37:37AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 09:26:14PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: What would be the benefit of having private non-visible vfsmounts? Sounds like a recipe for confusion? It is possible that mountd might start doing bind-mounts

Re: Getting the nfs_fh of a specific file/dir from the kernel

On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 03:13:01PM -0800, Trond Myklebust wrote: On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 10:06 +0200, Menny Hamburger wrote: We implement our own nfsd in user space - so the kernel nfsd (as well as the lockd) are disabled. We need the handle in order to associate a kernel file handle with

Re: Getting the nfs_fh of a specific file/dir from the kernel

On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 03:19:40PM -0800, Trond Myklebust wrote: On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 18:16 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 03:13:01PM -0800, Trond Myklebust wrote: On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 10:06 +0200, Menny Hamburger wrote: We implement our own nfsd in user space

Re: [NFS] [2.6 patch] remove nfs4_acl_add_ace()

On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: nfs4_acl_add_ace() can now be removed. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Acked-by: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message

Re: If not readdir() then what?

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 04:36:33PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: 1) Deprecate telldir/seekdir() altogether. Relatively few progams use this functionality, and it is highly questionable how useful it is, anyway. If you use telldir/seekdir and keep the cookie for a long time, even the

Re: [PATCH 8/8] AFS: Add security support

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 08:10:37PM +0100, David Howells wrote: Add security support to the AFS filesystem. Kerberos IV tickets are added as RxRPC keys are added to the session keyring with the klog program. open() and other VFS operations then find this ticket with request_key() and either

Re: [PATCH 8/8] AFS: Add security support

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 09:10:32PM +0100, David Howells wrote: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just curious--when is the actual crypto done? There doesn't seem to be any in this patch. See AF_RXRPC patch: http://people.redhat.com/~dhowells/rxrpc/04-af_rxrpc.diff You

Re: If not readdir() then what?

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 08:21:16AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: Again, compared to a directory fd cache, what you're proposing a huge hit to the filesystem, and at the moment, given that telldir/seekdir is rarely used by everyone else, it's mainly NFS which is the main bad actor here by

Re: Odd log message associated with NFS

On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 07:39:10PM +, Thorsten Kranzkowski wrote: Mar 16 16:57:06 Marvin kernel: svc: bad direction 268435456, dropping request Mar 16 17:58:19 Marvin kernel: svc: bad direction 268435456, dropping request Mar 16 19:55:49 Marvin kernel: svc: bad direction 268435456, dropping

Re: Issues with knfsd + solaris clients

On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 01:34:21PM -0700, Phy Prabab wrote: Here is a little bit more information on my issue with slowlaris and Could you just use their name? It's a little distracting otherwise. knfs 2.6.21-rc4/5 (actually appears in 2.4.20.x). Running this from the client (x.org source

Re: Odd log message associated with NFS

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:05:36PM +, Thorsten Kranzkowski wrote: I'll let a tcpdump run this evening and see if I can correlate the message with anything. If you have a printk or other patch for me to try, just let me know. Well, just for fun, you could try something like this--should

Re: Odd log message associated with NFS

On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:51:45PM +, Thorsten Kranzkowski wrote: The source address obviously isn't from my local net, and the clear text speaks for itself. Woah, yeah, neato. OK, I guess that makes me a lot more willing to believe any impossible error in

Re: [patch 32/37] CRYPTO: api: scatterwalk_copychunks() fails to advance through scatterlist

On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 12:14:37PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: Indeed. That patch was buggy. Sorry for not catching this earlier. Yep, thanks for the fix. I used the wrong length, then tested with a case where nbytes would always be less than PAGE_SIZE, which doesn't hit this problem.

Re: Top 10 kernel oopses for the week ending January 5th, 2008

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:39:35PM +, Al Viro wrote: On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:06:17PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas as well as with a client users can install to

[PATCH] REPORTING-BUGS: cc the mailing list too

People should also cc relevant mailing lists when reporting bugs. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- REPORTING-BUGS | 11 ++- 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/REPORTING-BUGS b/REPORTING-BUGS index ac02e42..ab0c566 100644 --- a/REPORTING

Documentation/ patches

I've had these (fairly trivial) patches sitting around for a while just because I had no idea who to send them to. So I figure that means they, err, go to you? Apologies if not. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL

[PATCH] Documentation: move dnotify.txt to filesystems/

I'm inclined to think dnotify belongs in filesystems/. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Documentation/00-INDEX|2 - Documentation/dnotify.txt | 99 - Documentation/filesystems/00-INDEX|2

Re: Documentation/ patches

On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 02:03:14PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:50:12 -0500 J. Bruce Fields wrote: I've had these (fairly trivial) patches sitting around for a while just because I had no idea who to send them to. So I figure that means they, err, go to you

Re: [PATCH 3/6] NLM: Initialize completion variable in lockd_up

On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 06:17:43PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Btw, lockd() takes BKL just after starting up and only implicitly drops it when blocking. This seems very dangerous to me and badly wants updating to some real locking scheme.. Yep. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send

Re: [patch] sunrpc: make closing of old temporary sockets work (was: problems with lockd in 2.6.22.6)

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 04:14:06PM +0200, Neil Brown wrote: So it is in 2.6.21 and later and should probably go to .stable for .21 and .22. Bruce: for you :-) OK, thanks! But, (as is alas often the case) I'm still confused: if (!test_and_set_bit(SK_OLD, svsk-sk_flags))

Re: [PATCH] Memory shortage can result in inconsistent flocks state

On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:38:13PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: This is a known feature that such re-locking is not atomic, but in the racy case the file should stay locked (although by some other process), but in this case the file will be unlocked. That's a little subtle (I assume you've

Re: [patch] sunrpc: make closing of old temporary sockets work (was: problems with lockd in 2.6.22.6)

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 09:40:57PM +0200, Wolfgang Walter wrote: On Wednesday 12 September 2007, J. Bruce Fields wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 04:14:06PM +0200, Neil Brown wrote: So it is in 2.6.21 and later and should probably go to .stable for .21 and .22. Bruce: for you

Re: [NFSv4] 2.6.23-rc4 oops in nfs4_cb_recall...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 03:39:23PM +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote: On 09/09/2007, J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When accessing a directory inode from a single other client, NFSv4 callbacks catastrophically failed [1] on the NFS server with 2.6.23-rc4 (unpatched); clients

Re: [PATCH] Memory shortage can result in inconsistent flocks state

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:27:08PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: On 09/11/2007 08:38 AM, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c index 0db1a14..f59d066 100644 --- a/fs/locks.c +++ b/fs/locks.c @@ -732,6 +732,14 @@ static int flock_lock_file(struct file *

[PATCH] Correctly close old nfsd/lockd sockets.

. Thanks to Wolfgang Walter for finding and reporting the bug. Cc: Wolfgang Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signed-off-by: Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- net/sunrpc/svcsock.c |3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) This looks appropriate

Re: [patch] sunrpc: make closing of old temporary sockets work (was: problems with lockd in 2.6.22.6)

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:12:30AM +0200, Wolfgang Walter wrote: Am Mittwoch, 12. September 2007 21:55 schrieb J. Bruce Fields: On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 09:40:57PM +0200, Wolfgang Walter wrote: On Wednesday 12 September 2007, J. Bruce Fields wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 04:14:06PM +0200

Re: [2/4] 2.6.23-rc6: known regressions

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 06:58:54PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote: Subject : [NFSv4] 2.6.23-rc4 oops in nfs4_cb_recall References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/4/53 http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9003 Last known good : ? Submitter : Daniel J

Re: Distributed storage. Move away from char device ioctls.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:14:53PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: J. Bruce Fields wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: I've been waiting for years for a smart person to come along and write a POSIX-only distributed filesystem. What exactly do you mean by POSIX-only

Re: Distributed storage. Move away from char device ioctls.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: My thoughts. But first a disclaimer: Perhaps you will recall me as one of the people who really reads all your patches, and examines your code and proposals closely. So, with that in mind... I question the value of distributed

Re: Distributed storage. Move away from char device ioctls.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 06:32:11PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: J. Bruce Fields wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:14:53PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: J. Bruce Fields wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: I've been waiting for years for a smart person to come along

Re: Distributed storage. Move away from char device ioctls.

On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:08:42AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: J. Bruce Fields wrote: No, servers are required to support ordinary nfs operations to the metadata server. At least, that's the way it was last I heard, which was a while ago. I agree that it'd stink (for any number of reasons

Re: [PATCH] Wake up mandatory locks waiter on chmod

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 06:30:43PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: When the process is blocked on mandatory lock and someone changes the inode's permissions, so that the lock is no longer mandatory, nobody wakes up the blocked process, but probably should. I suppose so. Does anyone actually use

Re: [PATCH] Wake up mandatory locks waiter on chmod

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:37:56AM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: J. Bruce Fields wrote: Is there a small chance that a lock may be applied after this check: + mandatory = (inode-i_flock MANDATORY_LOCK(inode)); + but early enough that someone can still block on the lock while

Re: [2.6.22.6] nfsd: fh_verify() `malloc failure' with lots of free memory leads to NFS hang

rpc.mountd` and also look at the contents of /proc/net/rpc/nfsd.fh/contents. --b. commit dd087896285da9e160e13ee9f7d75381b67895e3 Author: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu Jul 26 16:30:46 2007 -0400 Use __fpurge to ensure single-line writes to cache files On a recent Debian/Sid

Re: [2.6.22.6] nfsd: fh_verify() `malloc failure' with lots of free memory leads to NFS hang

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:54:07AM +0100, Nix wrote: The code which calls new_do_write() looks like this: ,[ libio/fileops.c:_IO_new_file_xsputn() ] | if (do_write) |{ | count = new_do_write (f, s, do_write); | to_do -= count; | if (count do_write) |

Re: [PATCH] Wake up mandatory locks waiter on chmod (v2)

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:33:26AM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: Trond Myklebust wrote: IOW: the process that is waiting in locks_mandatory_area() will be released as soon as the advisory lock is dropped. If that theory is broken in practice, then that is the bug that we need to fix. We

Re: [PATCH] Wake up mandatory locks waiter on chmod (v2)

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:14:55PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: Note also that strictly speaking, we're not even compliant with the System V behaviour on read() and write(). See: http://www.unix.org.ua/orelly/networking_2ndEd/nfs/ch11_01.htm and

Re: [PATCH] Wake up mandatory locks waiter on chmod (v2)

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:54:56PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 12:52 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: So currently there's nothing to prevent this: - write passes locks_mandatory_area() checks - get mandatory lock - read old data

Re: NFS4 authentification / fsuid

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 07:42:20PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote: [all sorts of crap about spies in washington needing stronger protection than your average consumer] [snip] [...] all the bullcrap about foreign intelligence Hehe,

Re: [PATCH] Wake up mandatory locks waiter on chmod

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:36:32AM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: J. Bruce Fields wrote: I would also prefer a locking scheme that didn't rely on the BKL. That said, except for this race: I would as well :) But I don't know the locking code good enough to start fixing. Besides, even if I

Re: [PATCH] Consolidate sleeping routines in file locking code

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 05:41:08PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: This is the next step in fs/locks.c cleanup before turning it into using the struct pid *. This time I found, that there are some places that do a similar thing - they try to apply a lock on a file and go to sleep on error

Re: [PATCH] Rework /proc/locks via seq_files and seq_list helpers

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:35:27PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: Currently /proc/locks is shown with a proc_read function, but its behavior is rather complex as it has to manually handle current offset and buffer length. On the other hand, files that show objects from lists can be easily

Re: [PATCH] Use list_first_entry in locks_wake_up_blocks

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 04:44:07PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: This routine deletes all the elements from the list with the while (!list_empty()) loop, and we already have a list_first_entry() macro to help it look nicer :) OK. --b. Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PATCH] Fix potential OOPS in generic_setlease()

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 06:26:05PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: This code is run under lock_kernel(), which is dropped during sleeping operations, so the following race is possible: CPU1:CPU2: vfs_setlease();vfs_setlease();

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >